Comment on this article |
Email this article |
TORTURED SOULS CREATE TWISTED HISTORY (english)
by N S Rajaram
24 Jul 2003
TORTURED SOULS CREATE TWISTED HISTORY -- The way Indian History was distorted over 5 decades . Whole world should know this
New Page 24
SOULS CREATE TWISTED HISTORY
Navaratna S. Rajaram
origins of distortions-
It is now widely recognized that Indian history has been distorted. The
public too is gradually becoming aware of this fact. At first, it was blamed on
the British rulers, who distorted Indian history to divide the people of India
so it would be easy to rule. There is truth in this. Lord Macaulay who created
the modern Indian education system, explicitly stated that he wanted Indians to
turn against their own history and tradition and take pride in being loyal
subjects of their British masters. In effect, what he envisaged was a form of
conversion— almost like religious conversion. It was entirely natural that
Christian missionaries should have jumped at the opportunity of converting the
people of India in the guise of educating the natives. So education was a
principal tool of missionary activity also. This produced a breed of ‘secular
converts’ who are proving to be as fanatical as any religious fundamentalist.
We call them secularists.
Macaulay made no secret of his intentions. In a famous letter to his
father he wrote: “Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. The effect
of this education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...It is my belief that if our
plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among
the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected
without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with
religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily
rejoice in the project.”
Macaulay, and British authorities in general, did not stop at this. They
recognized that a conquered people are not fully defeated unless their history
is destroyed. It is best if this destruction takes place at their own hands:
British ‘scholars’ would assist it of course, but ultimately, the Indians
themselves should be made to destroy their past. So the plan envisaged cultural
suicide rather than cultural genocide. To this end, a new discipline called
Indology, and whole new tribe of scholarship called Indologists were created and
supported by the British. The most famous of them all was a German by name
Friedrich Max Muller who saw the opportunity and made a grand success of it by
working for the British according to Macaulay’s plan. The plan was to
translate, edit and publish Indian classics—especially the Vedas—in such a
manner that it would turn the educated people of India against their history and
tradition and make them take pride in being ruled by the British. It was hoped
that with this, many would also give up Hinduism and opt for Christianity.
Max Muller is still regarded as a great lover of India and her
civilization but the reality is that he was a British agent paid to give a
derogatory interpretation of the Vedas. We have his word for it. There can be no
doubt at all regarding Max Muller's commitment to the conversion of Indians to
Christianity through his scholarly activity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he
observed: “It [the Rigveda] is the
root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the
only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand
years.” Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting
Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And
if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?"
facts therefore are clear: like Lawrence of Arabia in the twentieth century, Max
Muller, though a scholar was an agent of the British government paid to advance
its colonial and Christian missionary interests. He was by no means the only
one, but only the most successful. Bishop Robert Caldwell who created the
Dravidian language theory once admitted his theory was “not only of
considerable moment from a philological [linguistic] point of view but of
vast moral and political importance.” By ‘moral and political’, he
meant Christian missionary and British colonial interests. He was the founder of
the Dravidian movement, which has proven to be highly disruptive. It is no
accident that even today the field of Dravidian linguistics continues be
dominated by Christian missionaries. Bishop Caldwell was the pioneer of this
brand of political-missionary agenda masquerading as scholarship.
It is entirely understandable that the British authorities should have
engaged in such tactics. They were only trying to make their own life as rulers
easy, for no imperialism can work without native collaborators. Even Aurangazeb
had to recruit Rajputs to run the Moghul Empire. The question today is— why do
these so-called secularist scholars, born and brought up in India, continue to
work within the framework handed down to them by their former colonial masters?
And many of these scholars were not even born when the British left.
To understand this we need to see them as converted people who transfer
their loyalties from the land of their birth to the land of their masters. This
is compounded by their lack of confidence in their own generally weak
scholarship— a state of mind that constantly seeks both patronage and
protection. Before we examine this conversion phenomenon, it is worth looking at
the nature and the magnitude of distortion that these men and women are engaged
just noted, these historians calling themselves ‘secularists,’ are really
colonial converts hostile to the land of their birth. As a result, the colonial
(distorted) version of history continues to be taught in Indian schools and
colleges. These distortions fall broadly under the following categories:
of ancient history through the ‘Aryan invasion’ and the Aryan-Dravidian
conflicts, presenting the Vedic Age as an ‘age of conflict.’
of medieval history, by whitewashing the Islamic record and presenting it as the
'age of synthesis'.
of the period of the Freedom Struggle, by whitewashing Congress blunders and
suppressing the contribution of the revolutionaries, Sardar Patel and Subhas
of post-independent India, by whitewashing the monumental blunders of Pandit
Nehru and his successors to bring about dynastic rule under the Nehru-Gandhi
dynasty at the cost of national interest.
shall be looking mainly at the first two, and touch upon the third. The first
point to note: it was the ancient period that gave India both its unity and
its sense of the nation. The Medieval period was a Dark Age, during which
the Hindu civilization was engaged in a desperate struggle for survival. In
addition, the forces of medievalism contributed nothing to Indian nationalism.
They acted as a negative force and held back progress, taking the country into a
Dark Age. They continue to act as a check against progress by holding on to
medieval ideas and practices.
important point to note is that the ancient period was an age of synthesis, when
people of different viewpoints like the Vedic, Tantric, Buddhistic, Jain and
other sects lived in relative harmony. There was also free exchange of ideas and
unfettered debate. The Medieval period was the age of conflict when Hindu
society was engaged in a desperate struggle for survival against the onslaught
of Jihad— something like what is happening in Kashmir today.
the Congress sponsored Leftist (‘secularist’) historians have done is to
exactly reverse this.
They have said that the ancient period was an age of conflict between Aryans and
non-Aryans, while trying to portray the Medieval period—dominated by Jihad (or
religious wars)—as a period of synthesis. Let us look at the record.
India: age of freedom and synthesis
books today still begin with the Aryan invasion of India, which is said to have
taken place in 1500 BC. Students are told that the ancient civilization of the
Indus Valley or the Harappan Civilization was Dravidian that was destroyed by
the invading Aryans. The truth now revealed by recent research from the
discovery of the Vedic Sarasvati River to the reading of the Indus script is
there was no Aryan invasion and no Aryan-Dravidian conflicts either. In
Sanskrit, ‘Aryan’ simply means cultured and not any race or language. As
previously noted, the idea of Aryans and Dravidians as mutually hostile people
was created during the colonial period, in which Christian missionaries like
Bishop Caldwell played an active role.
of India is of untold antiquity.
was claimed by the British, and faithfully repeated by the secularist
intellectuals, that the British unified India. This is completely false. The
unity of India, rooted in her ancient culture, is of untold antiquity. It may
have been divided at various times into smaller kingdoms, but the goal was
always to be united under a ‘Chakravartin’ or a ‘Samrat’. This unity was
cultural though not always political. This cultural unity was seriously damaged
during the Medieval period, when India was engaged in a struggle for survival—
like what is happening in Kashmir today. Going back thousands of years, India
had been united under a single ruler many times. The earliest recorded emperor
of India was Bharata, the son of Shakuntala and Dushyanta, but there were
several others. I give below some examples from the Aitareya Brahmana.
this great anointing of Indra, Dirghatamas Mamateya anointed Bharata Daushanti.
Therefore, Bharata Daushanti went round the earth completely, conquering on
every side and offered the horse in sacrifice.
this great anointing of Indra, Tura Kavasheya anointed Janamejaya Parikshita.
Therefore Janamejaya Parikshita went round the earth completely, conquering on
every side and offered the horse in sacrifice."
are similar statements about Sudasa Paijavana anointed by Vasistha, Anga
anointed by Udamaya Atreya, Durmukha Pancala anointed by Brihadukta and Atyarati
Janampati anointed by Vasistha Satyahavya. Atyarati, though not born a king,
became an emperor and went on conquer even the Uttara Kuru or the modern
Sinkiang and Turkestan that lie north of Kashmir. There are others also
mentioned in the Shathapatha Brahmana and also the Mahabharata. This
shows that the unity of India is ancient. Also, the British did not rule over a
unified India. They had treaties with the rulers of hereditary kingdoms like
Mysore, Kashmir, Hyderabad and others that were more or less independent. The
person who united all these was Sardar Patel, not the British. But this
unification was possible only because India is culturally one. Pakistan,
with no such identity or cultural unity, is falling apart.
India: Dark Age and conflict
was the last great Indian ruler of North India. Several empires continued in the
south like the Chalukya, the Rashtrakuta and finally Vijayanagara. Islamic
invasions into India began in the 8th century or about a century
after Harsha’s death. Iran (or Persia) collapsed within a single generation to
the Islamic armies, as did the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire of
Constantinople. Arabs intruded into Sind, but their hold did not last. It took
the Islamic forces more than 300 years before they could defeat the Hindu
kingdom of Afghanistan. Then the invasion of India began in earnest with the
Mahmud of Ghazni in the 10th – 11th centuries.
should be understood that what Islam brought to India—and other parts of the
world—was a new kind of warfare that was unknown in ancient times. It was
called Jihad. The idea was not merely to conquer a country but to totally
destroy its history and civilization. Iran and Egypt had great civilizations
going back thousands of years, but they have been totally wiped out. This is
what is happening to Afghanistan today and also what the Jihadists are trying to
do to Kashmir.
is the true picture of Medieval India, which was a long Dark Age. As the
distinguished American historian Will Durant says, "The Islamic conquest of
India is probably the bloodiest story in history." Fortunately, Hindu
learning survived in places like Sringeri, Benares, Kanchi and a few other
places. Also, Indian rulers, especially in Vijayanagara, Mysore and several
others protected scholars and artists.
problem today is that Leftist historians (‘secularists’) claim that none of
this happened even though there are literally thousands of ruined temples and
monasteries all over India to prove it. One has only to go to Hampi, the former
capital of Vijayanagara to see the evidence. Even Akbar allowed Rajputs and
other Hindus into his administration only because he could not find enough
foreigners. Otherwise, the policy of the Delhi Sultans and the Moghuls was to
import officials from outside the country— just as the British did. All this
is whitewashed in Indian history books written by the secularists. For example,
students are taught that Babar was a tolerant ruler who loved India. But here is
what Babar himself says in his autobiography, the Baburnama.
had been in the daru'l-harb [Hindu rule] for some years and held by Sanga's
highest-ranking officer Meidini Rao, with four or five thousand infidels, but in
934 [1527-28], through the grace of God, I took it by force within a ghari or
two, massacred the infidels, and brought it into the bosom of Islam.
what did he find interesting in India? "Hindustan," he wrote, "is
a place of little charm. ... The one nice aspect of Hindustan is it is a large
country with lots of gold and money." In other words, he came to India
attracted by loot. For the better part of three hundred years, the Moghuls ruled
North India as foreign occupiers, using a foreign language — Persian — in
This record of Medieval India has been whitewashed in history books in
use today. One of the clearest examples of history distortion can be seen in the
Ayodhya-Ramjanmabhumi controversy. Secularist historians repeatedly asserted
that no Ram Temple had been destroyed at the site of Babri Masjid. The first
point is that Muslim writers have made no secret of the fact that they destroyed
the temple. Here is what Aurangazeb’s granddaughter wrote in 1707, in her
Persian work Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa'ih Bahadurshahi:
keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all
idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah,
grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and
waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use
for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the
temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh.
addition to the matter of fact admission of the destruction, what is striking is
the fiery tone of intolerance. She was after all Aurangazeb’s granddaughter.
In addition, we have archaeological evidence showing that a temple existed at
the site. After the demolition of the Babari Masjid by karsevaks on
December 6, 1992, archaeologists found a temple under it and also a stone
inscription. Here is what an important part of the inscription has to say:
15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of
Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones... , and beautified with a golden spire
... unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings ... This wonderful
temple ... was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala.
... Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali ... and the ten-headed
personage (Dashanana, or Ravana)."
the face of this, no one can argue that no temple was destroyed. The
distinguished archaeologist Professor B.B. Lal who carried out the excavation at
Ayodhya wrote a sixty-page report on his findings. But this was suppressed,
thanks to influential secularist historians like Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar and
R.S. Sharma. These secularists then put out a propaganda pamphlet on Ayodhya
denying that there ever was a temple at Ramjanmabhumi.
as ancient and medieval history has been distorted under Congress patronage, the
history of the Freedom Movement has also been dressed up to favor the Congress
and the Communists. This distortion has the following parts: (1) Building up the
role of Gandhi and Nehru while suppressing the contribution of others, notably
Subhas Bose. (2) Whitewashing Gandhi’s terrible blunder of supporting the
Khilafat Movement and the atrocities of the Mopla Rebellion that followed. There
are others like the Nehru family dynastic blunders that need not detain us here.
books in use today tell us that it was the Congress Party through its various
movements like the Quit India Movement of 1942 that brought freedom to India.
This fails to explain the fact that the British granted independence only in
1947 while the Quit India Movement had collapsed by the end of 1942. The
question is— why did the British leave in such great hurry in August 1947?
Clement Attlee, the British Prime Minister at the time of Indian independence
provided the answer. Here is the story.
B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited
India and stayed as his guest for three days at the Raj Bhavan. Chakravarti
asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India.
Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in ruins years
before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry.
Attlee’s response (given below) is most illuminating and important for
reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment
of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end,
I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India
was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s
lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on
each single letter — "mi-ni-mal."
crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s activities, the Indian
Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of India rather than of the
British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what led to India’s
freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire disappeared from the
face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian
soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight
for the British. What influenced the British decision was the mutiny of the
Indian Navy following the INA trials in 1946. While the British wanted to try
Subhas Bose’s INA as traitors, Indian soldiers saw them as nationalists and
patriots. This scared the British. They decided to get out in a hurry.
secularist historians are enjoying a privileged life in India. Unlike Indian
scientists, engineers and other professionals, there is little interest in their
work outside India. They owe everything to India. Why do they go to such lengths
to demean and distort everything about India’s past so there is nothing left
for Indians, Hindus in particular, to take pride in their heritage? Now that
their version of ‘history’ is beginning to unravel, the state of mind that
led these privileged members of society to turn against their country and their
ancestors is beginning to attract the attention of scholars.
of the hatred can be attributed to the Macaulayite system of education that was
specifically designed to turn the English educated Indians into loyal servants
of the British rulers. If it meant accepting a second class citizenship in their
own country, there were compensations enough to satisfy their material and
emotional needs: they could always look down upon their brethren as beneath
them. This privileged class continued and expanded after independence— thanks
to a succession of Congress Governments that patronized them for political
brought tangible material benefits also. Just as the British rewarded their
loyal Indian servants with titles like knighthoods, Rao Bahadur, Khan Saheb and
so forth, the present day West rewards also these anti-Hindu, pro-West scholars
willing to pander to the sense of superiority of their chosen masters. Racism
may be illegal in most Western countries, but the racist impulse still lurks in
the breasts of some Western academics, especially in the humanities. This is
what has kept alive such overtly racist creations like the Aryan invasion theory
in various guises. Naturally, Indian scholars who are willing serve them are
rewarded with fellowships, travel or even an occasional visiting professorship.
While Sanskrit illiterates like Romila Thapar have been showered with
invitations from prestigious centers, has anyone heard of a Western university
inviting a truly great Vedic scholar from India? In fact, Western Sanskritists
avoid real scholars like the plague. It was the fear of facing scholars like
Dayananda Sarasvati that made Max Muller avoid visiting India.
Dayananda said of Max Muller: “In a desert where nothing grows, a castor plant
looks like an oak.” And of his Sanskrit and Vedic scholarship: “He is like a
toddler trying to walk.”)
comprehend the state of mind that animates these people it helps to recognize
that they still behave like imperial subjects with an almost religious
attachment to their beliefs. Just as many Muslims still live in an Islamic
Empire of their imagination, these secularist scholars also live in an imaginary
world of permanent inferiority ruled over by masters they always have to please.
When faced with a problem, like the revision of history books that is currently
taking place—and which they dub “saffronization”—they don’t take their
complaints to the people of India. They run to Europe or America to cry about
it. They still believe that the West can or at least should solve their
This kind of behavior is typical of converted peoples. Speaking of
converted Muslims in non-Arab lands V.S. Naipaul noted in his book Beyond
Belief that Islam does not just require a different form of worship. It
makes imperial demands. In his words:
convert's world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred
language is Arabic. His idea of history alters.” Naipaul might also have said
that this is accompanied by an inveterate hatred of one's ancestors and the
culture into which they were born. A hatred deep enough to want to destroy one's
own land and join the ranks of the violators of the ancestral land and culture,
at least in spirit. Pakistan is an example. Its heroes are not the Vedic kings
and sages who walked the land, but invading vandals like Ghaznavi and Ghori who
ravaged them. Again as Naipaul puts it: "Only the sands of Arabia are
It is no different with the secularists. They have succumbed to the
imperial demands of Macaulayism, even though the empire that created and
sustained it has disappeared. They must be loyal to their empire and destroy
everything sacred about their past. This idea of the destruction of the sense of
the sacred is not widely recognized. The pagan spirit, especially the Hindu,
attaches great significance to his sense of punya-bhumi,
to tirthas made sacred by
association with heroes and sages from the hoary past. Conversion entails giving
up this attachment to one's sacred land and symbols and even turning against it
with destructive zeal. This is movingly chronicled in Naipaul's Beyond
Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples.
(Naipaul, whose ancestors were from India, was born and grew up in
Trinidad.) Its original pagan inhabitants along with their sacred places had
been obliterated by European invaders. It was only after he had left the island,
some forty years later, that he began to notice this lack. What brought this
realization was his coming into contact with India, the original punya-bhumi.
It is this sense of sacredness that Christianity and Islam have destroyed
wherever they have gone. This anti-sacred feeling is particularly virulent in
lands converted to Islam. Again, as Naipaul observes: "...in the converted
Muslim countries—Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia—the fundamentalist rage is
against the past, against history, and the impossible dream is of true faith
growing out of a spiritual vacancy." I have noticed the same rage, though
perhaps more subdued and certainly less violent, among the converted Christians
in India, many of who have never reconciled to the loss of colonial patronage.
They are blind to sacredness around them, still clinging the impossible dream of
Western 'Christendom' coming to their aid in their hopeless, unnecessary
struggle against the pagan Hindus who they deride as heathens.
is the same with the secularist converts— the remaining loyal servants of
European imperialism. The result is rage without end. Having lost one's own
identity, the convert must destroy everyone else's. Secular converts, like every
other convert, can never be at peace with themselves or with the world. This
feeling has been made all the worse by the rising tide of Indian nationalism,
which their imagined masters in the West are doing nothing to stop. The result
is men and women with tortured, twisted souls who can only distort and destroy
as much as they can before eventually destroying themselves.